The inane arguments used by the left to oppose firearms freedom cannot stand on logic, and belie Democrats’ claims that they support the Second Amendment rights.

In May, the Associated Press reported that the Senate rejected an effort to expand the use of firearms on some of the United States’ most frequently visited federal lands, controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed amendment, backed by the National Rifle Association, would have allowed use of firearms for any legal purpose on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees nearly 12 million acres abounding in lakes, rivers, campsites and hiking trails. These lands are visited by 370 million people annually, more than visit the property of any other federal agency. About 80 percent of these lands are within 50 miles of urban areas, making them accessible destinations. Currently, firearms on those properties are limited to activities like target-range shooting and hunting, and weapons must be unloaded while in transit to those activities.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and found here, would have updated the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, Senate bill S.3525 (full text here). It enjoyed bipartisan support, including from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Patrick Toomey (R-PA). However, the vote for the proposed amendment was 56-43, falling short of the 60 votes needed to enact it into law. The Associated Press stated the defeat “hand[ed] gun control advocates a modest success” in the recent gun-control debate. But the rationale for opposing the amendment exposes the inane, sophomoric dogma of prominent gun control advocates.

Senator Barbara Boxer

Sen. Coburn said the right to bear arms should be the same on Corps property as it already is in national parks. Opponents claim the weapons could threaten critical facilities such as dams and flood control projects.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects, stating, “This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists,” and that allowing more guns “sets up a national security threat. It endangers people.”

Let us consider this. The law already allows for loaded guns to be present on these very same lands for some purposes, like hunting and target practice. The amendment would have allowed guns for any otherwise lawful purpose. The bill, S.3525, or the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, already included provisions for “Making public lands public” (Section 101) and “Target Practice and Marksmanship Training” (Section 111), independent of the failed amendment. But the rationale for opposing the amendment is that it allows firearms near critical infrastructure — which, by law, we already allow for some purposes — and that that infrastructure might be a potential target of terrorists. Therefore we need to continue to restrict access to guns; not all guns categorically, but just for some purposes that are perfectly lawful elsewhere.

One is tempted to stop and ask: Is Sen. Boxer really that stupid? Or does she think the American public is so stupid as to accept this flimsy rationale? Does the Senator believe that this law, which prevents just a few purposes of currently lawful gun use, would stop terrorists from targeting waterways?

The ridiculousness of the dogma held by prominent anti-gun personalities is exposed in legislative battles such as these. When challenged by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) regarding her attempt to curb Second Amendment rights through legislation, senior California Senator Dianne Feinstein felt the need to clarify that she’s “not a sixth grader.” The left seems to interpret the simplicity of the conservative argument as an affront to its intelligence.

One wonders nevertheless if Boxer, the junior senator from California, likewise might benefit from a word lesson on inane: “silly, empty, unsubstantial, lacking significance, meaning or point.” Here’s another: sophomoric, or “conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature.”

It is certainly immature, silly, lacking significance, poorly informed, and half-witted to propose terrorism as a reason to selectively ban guns from lands where we already allow them for hunting and target-shooting purposes. That gun control advocates stoop to such arguments betrays the weakness of those arguments. They rely on bogeymen, and reveal that the left’s claim of strong support for Second Amendment rights, or America’s “hunting and sporting” heritage, is a lie.

About the Author

Matt MacBradaigh - Husband, Father, Christian, Patriot, Conservative. I live in the Pacific Northwest (Washington), outside of Seattle. I enjoy running, hiking, camping, shooting, hunting, Linux computing, and Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Apocolyptic fiction like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Patriots & Day by Day Armageddon. I fundamentally believe in upholding the Constitution, and am particularly passionate about the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.